Health officials deceive public about bird flu transmission from cattle to humans
Call a presumptive bird flu case a confirmed bird flu case
The WHO has already been caught misinforming the public about a death from bird flu in Mexico which was really a death from kidney failure. The Mexican government quickly called the WHO out on that falsehood. The WHO admitted its error but hasn't taken down the disinformation from its website, as of yet.
Now, the CDC may have finally outdone the WHO by averring that a case of conjunctivitis (pink eye) in a Texas dairy farm worker is bird flu despite not having enough virions from the worker for a PCR test (they used genomic sequencing instead) and no clinical data other than his eye and nasal swabs. It didn't even have any specimens from the cows or environmental samples. So the CDC's case was based on presumption upon presumption.
We learn of this from a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which described how the authors arrived at their diagnoses. The authors, individuals with the CDC, Texas Department of State Health Services, and Texas Tech University Bioterrorism Response Laboratory, said the farm worker was healthy and showed no sign of illness other than the conjunctivitis. He had been working with both well and sick cattle; the sick cattle were said to have the same symptoms as cattle diagnosed with bird flu on other farms. He wore protective gloves but no respiratory or eye protection.
Swabs from the individual’s eye and nose did not provide enough viral fragments to detect the virus via a PCR test. However, the test results were reported to be presumptive for bird flu and on that basis it was recommended that he isolate himself at home and take oseltamivir (Tamiflu) an antiviral known to cause the same symptoms as bird flu.
Conjunctival and nasopharyngeal swab specimens were obtained from the right eye for influenza testing. The results of real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) testing were presumptive for influenza A and A(H5) virus in both specimens. On the basis of a presumptive A(H5) result, home isolation was recommended, and oral oseltamivir (75 mg twice daily for 5 days) was provided for treatment of the worker and for post exposure prophylaxis for the worker’s household contacts (at the same dose). (Emphases added.)
Next the authors report that by using PCR testing and genomic sequencing they were able to confirm that the eye swab tested positive for H5NI bird flu; there was not sufficient material from the nasal swab to do that. In order to perform the genomic sequencing, they had to amplify the virions first by PCR.
On the basis of real-time RT-PCR and sequencing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed HPAI A(H5N1) virus infection in the conjunctival and nasopharyngeal swab specimens obtained on the day of symptom onset.
Additional clinical specimens were not available for influenza testing. Although viral RNA purified from the nasopharyngeal swab specimen (cycle threshold [Ct] value, 33) yielded insufficient PCR amplicons for sequencing, complete genome sequences from the conjunctival swab specimen (Ct value, 18) confirmed that the virus belonged to clade 2.3.4.4b (genotype B3.13), and successful virus isolation from both the conjunctival and nasopharyngeal swab specimens yielded identical virus.
Scientists who do genomic sequencing must be highly skilled, otherwise it is difficult to determine the accuracy of their findings.
Use test "not fit for purpose" to diagnose cases
However, even if they did have enough virions for PCR testing, a positive PCR test would not have necessarily diagnosed a true case of bird flu. X user Grizz tweeted a post about the 2007 NY Times article, "Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn't" which explained how faulty PCR tests are known for creating false epidemics.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association wrote in 2020 that COVID-19 PCR tests were "not fit for purpose."
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Presume the cattle are infected, too.
The authors refer to specimens from cattle having the characteristics of H5NI bird flu, but they don't say where the cattle specimens came from.
Viral sequences from cattle and from the worker maintained primarily avian genetic characteristics. . .
This is significant because the authors state, in the discussion section of the report supplement, that they did not have any cow specimens or environmental samples from that particular farm.
[O]ur findings are suggestive of human infection occurring in the dairy farm setting and cow-to-human transmission of HPAI A(H5N1) virus from presumptively infected cows to an exposed dairy farm worker. However, we cannot exclude fomite transmission because no specimens from cows or environmental samples were available from the worker’s farm for testing, and epidemiological investigations were not able to be conducted at the farm. (Emphasis added.)
Not only are they not sure that they have the facts right, but if they do, this would be the first time a mammal ever infected a person with H5N1!
If cow-to-human transmission occurred, to our knowledge, this would be the first reported case of mammal-to-human HPAI A(H5N1) virus transmission reported worldwide.
Pay farmers to kill cattle
Champagne Joshi tweeted CNN Health's article calling on farmers to put down their cattle because of “bird flu” as another way to create panic and give the illusion of a “pandemic,” stating:
They are bribing farmers to get their foot in the door and create the illusion of another “pandemic”.
“As part of the plan, announced Friday by the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture, the government will pay up to $28,000 per farm over the next four months to support specific steps to prevent the spread of bird flu in dairy cattle. About $98 million will be funneled to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to fund the program.”
Bird flu "pandemic" for acceptance of IHR amendments?
Even though the CDC states that the public health risk of a pandemic bird flu is low, might bird flu scare mongering frighten enough people into demanding that the U.S. agree to the WHO IHR amendments? The timing is interesting, as countries have till March 2025 to voice their objections.
